Social Science Dimensions
  • Home
  • Services
    • Impact Assessment, Monitoring and Evaluation, and Social Research
    • Land Research and Policy
    • Justice and Dispute Resolution
    • Political Economy Analysis
    • Governance, Policy Development, and Sustainable Public Administration
    • Sustainability and Natural Resource Governance
    • Rural Development
    • Project Design and Proposal Development
    • Health
  • Portfolio
    • Portfolio Standard
    • Portfolio Mobile
  • Approaches
    • Survey Design
    • Data Management
  • Blog
    • Chronological Blog
  • Contact
  • Resources / Library

Some Post-Election Musings

27/5/2019

0 Comments

 
PictureAustralian politics: Glass half full?
Graham Ring reflects on the 2019 Australian Federal Election
On election day, the people of Australia spoke loudly and clearly, leaving no room for doubt about their priorities. They roared as one, in a voice that echoed from Queensland to all corners of the land: 

“We Want More Stuff!”

“We don’t care much for climate change and the need to protect the environment.”

“We are not interested in the plight of refugees and asylum seekers, beyond the thought that we don’t want them to have what is rightfully ours.”

“We feel the unemployed are letting as down, and we have no interest in increasing the pitifully low level of unemployment benefit.”

“We don’t want our taxes to be spent overseas. We have had the dumb luck to be born in one of the wealthiest countries on earth and we intend to wallow in it.” 

“We believe that the sectors we participate in are entitled to greater government subsidies – which should be funded by taking money from the sectors we don’t participate in.

“We want our taxes to go down and our incomes to go up.”

​“This will enable us to Buy More Stuff.”

It’s impossible to avoid the conclusion that most Australians vote in their own short-term self-interest.  “Under which party will I be better off?” is the key question. More esoteric concerns about the kind of community we want to be, and the responsibility we have as custodians of the planet, can take a back seat.  

The Australian middle-class seems to be infected with an entitlement mentality. Despite the fact that our material standard of living has increased enormously in the last fifty years we still want more. A lot more.

As has often been observed, the accumulation of Yet More Stuff somehow doesn’t provide any lasting satisfaction. Clive Hamilton provides much evidence to support this view in his thoughtful book Growth Fetishpublished in 2003 by Allen & Unwin. 
 Australians are rarely moved to seriously examine other options like:
  • Moving away from gung-ho development, particularly the wanton exploitation of our finite natural resources.
  • Considering the possibility that a slightly reduced ’standard of living’ doesn’t have to equate with a decline in our well-being.
  • Commissioning a broad-based panel to review the $38 billion Australia spends on defence each year, to examine whether a proportion of this money could be more effectively spent elsewhere.  
  • Seeking a more secular society.  

The Australian Labor Party – and the labour movement more broadly – was perhaps the single greatest force for good in Australia in the twentieth century.  Mighty victories were won. We saw the establishment of one of most progressive social security systems in the world – now being allowed to run down. We saw the introduction of age-pensions and disability pensions, and housing assistance. We saw parliament pass laws to protect the health and safety of people in their workplaces.   We saw a public health care system which is the equal of any in the world. The value of these contributions can never be diminished.

However, the ALP faces a desperate battle to remain relevant in the face of the complex, shifting issues that confront us in the twenty-first century. Labor is hopelessly compromised by the electoral realities of having to gain the support of the We Want More Stuff brigade. Today it is the Greens who offer more in the way of a vision for the future. Is it conceivable that these two progressive parties can find a way to unite and fight the good fight together?  

Lobby groups like Get Up have also have a key role to play, with their demonstrated ability to react quickly and cleverly to developments.  They are both legitimate and purposeful in a pluralist society. There presence is valuable because there is much to be done

​The Federal Election 2019 was a victory only for mediocrity and consumerism.

Graham Ring is a Darwin based writer and journalist.
​

0 Comments

Is Internal Displacement an Avoidable Crisis?

17/5/2019

0 Comments

 
Picture
Pauline Wesolek



SSD Associate Pauline Wesolek specialises in forced displacement and civil society strengthening. She is currently serving as research consultant with the  Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre operated by the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC).



Photo Credit: "Roda was forced to leave her home with her children in search of food and water when drought in Somaliland (Somalia) killed her goats". NRC - 2018

Conflicts, disasters and poverty are among the reasons thousands of people flee their homes every year. While, over the past ten years, international attention has focused on cross-border movements, the number of people living in internal displacement - at 41.3 million[i]- is nearly double the number of refugees.[ii]

Internal displacement comes at colossal, long-term human and financial cost. Indeed, internally displaced persons (IDPs) are considered among the most vulnerable people in the world, unable to exert their human rights or achieve durable solutions.[iii]Internal displacement also affects IDP’s ability to contribute to the economy while incurring costs for their government and aid providers.[iv]

Preventing internal displacement is therefore crucial, and one would expect governments - who bear the primary responsibility on the matter - to take all the necessary steps to prevent and mitigate internal displacement. While guiding principles do exist, there are no binding international instruments to ensure adequate measures; and governments show varying levels of commitment. 

The launch of the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement in 1998 was a significant step forward and marked the beginning of the recognition of internal displacement. In fact, the majority of the 28 laws and 56 policies recorded globally in the Global Database on IDP Laws and Policies developed by the Global Protection Cluster[v]at the end of 2018 were developed following the publication of the Guiding Principles. Yet, those frameworks are not necessarily adopted where they are most needed. Syria had 6,119,000 IDPs in 2018[vi]but does not have a framework addressing internal displacement. India is regularly hit by disasters, yet its National Disaster Management Plan does not refer to internal displacement. 

Moreover, political frameworks tend to limit their ambitions to the provision of assistance to IDPs and the creation of the conditions for durable solutions, thus focusing on mitigating the consequences of internal displacement rather than addressing its root causes. The importance of those frameworks cannot, however, be overlooked, for they are key to the fulfilment of IDPs’ rights. The existence of policy frameworks and the efforts deployed to develop and implement them are also indicators of a government’s political will to address internal displacement.

Implementation remains a challenge and can be hampered by a lack of financial and technical capacities, the absence of political momentum and inaccurate data. The discrepancies between the existence of IDP policies and laws and the number of IDPs in protracted situations suggest that this is often the case.  For instance, Yemen adopted a comprehensive National Policy for Addressing Internal Displacement in 2013. The framework aims to prevent internal displacement associated with disasters and conflicts and to promote durable solutions, but does not have a clear financing plan. Yet, at 2,324,000,[vii]the number of IDPs in Yemen represents 8 percent of the country’s population, steadily pushed towards a protracted situation. Yemen is not an isolated case and a significant fraction of the countries which have adopted comprehensive frameworks do not have adequate financing and implementation plans, or the necessary capacity and political will.

Alternatively, the reason policy frameworks may fail to prevent and respond to internal displacement could lie in the fact that there is a need for a more comprehensive approach, which goes beyond a focus on triggers to address root causes. Conflicts and disasters are mere triggers of displacement. Indeed, research conducted by the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre[viii]highlights that displacement results from a combination of accumulated vulnerabilities, such as difficult socio-economic conditions, poor governance, inadequate infrastructure or inappropriate environmental management, themselves causing the event that ultimately pushes people to flee. This is particularly true in instances of natural hazards, for the development of disaster risk reduction policies, combined with appropriate investment in hazard-resistant infrastructure, could reduce people’s vulnerability to climatic events and, by extension, their need to flee in case of disaster. The causality is not as clear in the case of conflicts, which often result from more complex dynamics. However, addressing land issues, poverty and political stability could contribute to reducing risks. 

Because of the complexity of its causes and triggers, internal displacement cannot always be avoided. Nonetheless, preventive measures and a comprehensive approach encompassing human development, economic vulnerability, environmental sustainability and political stability can contribute to mitigating its scale. To achieve this, internal displacement should be mainstreamed in national development plans, poverty reduction strategies and disaster risk reduction plans.[ix]Global initiatives such as the Sustainable Development Goals, which have targets for human development, environmental sustainability and refer to internal displacement, can also contribute towards this without adding pressure on governments. 

The international community should push for the adoption of binding instruments reaffirming the rights of IDPs at the regional and global levels. The Kampala Convention – first legal binding instrument addressing internal displacement – has proven to be a good leverage for advocacy and policy development. Such frameworks must of course be domesticated into national policies or mainstreamed into existing frameworks and reform agendas in order to meet local realities. In fact, mainstreaming internal displacement in all sectors would allow for the comprehensive approach necessary for its prevention. It would also facilitate implementation, for focal points and financing mechanisms would already be in place.

The existence of frameworks, however, means very little without the adequate implementing capacity. It is therefore crucial for key players in the sector to help governments reinforce their conceptual understanding of internal displacement, design monitoring tools and strengthen their response capacities. Donors should put internal displacement higher in their priorities and avail resources for technical capacity reinforcement. The challenges are significant and the means to address and respond to internal displacement should be proportional to the amplitude of the crisis.

Notes/References

[i]This figure refers to the number of IDPs displaced by conflict as of the end of 2018.

[ii]IDMC, Global Report on International Displacement 2019, 2019.

[iii]Durable solutions mark the end of internal displacement and consist in three options: voluntary repatriation, local integration and resettlement. When durable solutions are achieved, assistance and protection needs, as well as potential violations of human rights associated with displacement do no longer exist.

[iv]IDMC, Unveiling the cost of internal displacement, February 2019.

[v]Global Protection Cluster, Global Database on IDP Laws and Policies

[vi]IDMC, Global Report on International Displacement 2019, 2019. 

[vii]IDMC, Global Report on International Displacement 2019, 2019. 

[viii]IDMC, Global Report on Internal Displacement 2018, 2018.

[ix]IDMC, Global Report on Internal Displacement 2018, 2018.


0 Comments

    Archives

    October 2022
    September 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    May 2019
    July 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    October 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    March 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    January 2014
    September 2013
    November 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    February 2012

Proudly powered by Weebly